Fellow list members:
On the left bio internet discussion list, which I am also on, there is a
discussion on population underway. Below is my initial post which may be of
interest to some of you.
Best, David Orton
*******

Hello left bios:
Good to see the discussion starting on population. Thanks S. for
this. It is a  discussion with a lot of interrelated aspects to it that
tests us all. On this issue, a lot of attacks seem to come the way of deep
ecology, many of them launched by social ecology supporters and some
ecofeminists. The discussion can be quite ugly, but I know this will not
happen on left bio. I do hope we can discuss ALL views, as we struggle for
a position that is ecocentrically and socially just and acceptable to those
on our left bio list.

One often has the position put forward that with increasing
affluence/education/democracy, population rates fall. So while this may be
correct, it seems to presuppose more economic growth and affluence, more
overall consumption of the "resources" of the Earth, to stabilize and
perhaps lower human populations. Our overall individual lifestyles,
reflected for example in the type of houses we live in or aspire to, are
important. (The fighting of the forest fires in BC this summer seemed a lot
focused around "defending" really upscale houses pushing into the treeline.
Or locally, the family down the road burns ten or eleven cords of wood a
year to keep their house warm, whereas our own consumption is about three
and a half cords. For us, the fire goes out when we go to bed. I know that
S. burns less wood, because her house relies on solar heat to a large
extent.)

B.'s point about children in countries like Canada being seen as
"liabilities," not assets in bringing down the birth rate, is important. It
does seems that with the continuous expansion of consumerism to drive the
expanding economy, what children "need" means increased dependence on their
parents. It means more tying of their parents to perpetuating economic
production, in order to continue the seemingly never-ending consumer
nurturing of their "children." (Higher education in Canada used to be
relatively accessible to all. This is no longer the case. Such an education
means taking on large debt and eventually entering the economic paradigm in
order to make the debt repayments.)

I believe that population reduction is also necessarily linked for deep
ecology supporters to having a policy on the migration and immigration of
people into a country. I often think about whether countries should still
subscribe to having their own "national character," for want of a better
term, or whether one should uphold that the world is now multi-cultural,
from a people perspective. So for example, just considering humans, are
countries like Germany, Japan, Costa Rica, France or England to be
restrictive in their immigration policies in order to maintain some
traditional national identity, which includes language, or is this a racist
viewpoint?

Below are some guidelines for me, at this stage of our discussion, on the
population issue:

- All left bios/deep ecology supporters uphold there are far too many
people on our planet and believe that there need to be significant
population reductions. We believe this will not only benefit humans, but is
necessary so that other species or life forms have the habitats they need
to flourish. We do not support any fascist (coercive) measures to achieve
population reduction, but do support existing states using non-coercive (?)
policies like taxation to achieve population reductions and massive
educational programs towards this end.

- Countries which still have large wild areas and a rich wildlife, and
small populations, cannot be considered dumping grounds for populations
from other countries. This would include countries like Canada and Australia.

- From a social justice perspective, every child in the world and every
family, no matter what their country of origin, deserves equal access to
the existing wealth in this world. (I am defining wealth to exclude Nature
here.) This must mean some kind of socialist/communist-type redistribution
of life opportunities and wealth from the economically prosperous countries
like Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, the countries of
Western Europe, etc. This means, no matter where a person is born in the
world, they will have roughly the same opportunities to education, health
care, housing, etc. If we do not address this, people will want to migrate
to countries where they consider that there are more economic
opportunities. The affluence of the so-called developed countries has been
to a significant extent at the expense of those countries considered
non-affluent. The main worldwide ecological problems have been
significantly contributed to by such developed countries. WE IN THE
SO-CALLED DEVELOPED COUNTRIES MUST LIVE THE LIFESTYLE THAT WE ADVOCATE FOR
OTHERS IN THE WORLD.

There are a few quotes from Arne Naess below which may be helpful, as I
found them helpful for me on this issue. (They are taken from the very
interesting paperback book of essays - some 30 contributors - called
_Philosophical Dialogues: Arne Naess and the Progress of Ecophilosophy_,
edited by Nina Witoszek and Andrew Brennan, 1999. This book is not a
hagiography, but a critical look at the deep ecology philosophy with Naess
responding, along with others, to the various critical points made.
However, all the quotes below are from Naess himself.  I do not identify
the particular essay by Naess, except by page reference to the book.)
Some relevant quotes from Naess on population-related issues:

"It is the global character, not preciseness in detail, which distinguishes
an ecosophy." (p.7)

"One cannot prove every assertion or norm. There are some which always,
however deep we are digging, are taken as ultimates." (p.35)

"Green politics is concerned about dignity as much as about material
standard of living. Dignity is essential to life quality. And it is
extended to animals. Animal factories interfere with the dignity of pigs."
(p.61)

"Every species in the long run alters ecosystems and mankind cannot be an
exception. It is the kind of alteration that matters." (p.124)

"The material standard of living should be drastically reduced and the
quality of life, in the sense of basic satisfaction in the depths of one's
heart or soul, should be maintained or increased. This view is intuitive as
are all important views, in the sense that it can't be proven." (pp.156-157)

"In Europe free Nature has already been largely destroyed. Tree plantations
have been substituted for forests." (p.223)

"It is important to combat ecological colonialism..." (p.223)

"We must live at a level that we seriously can wish others to attain, not
at a level that requires the bulk of humanity NOT to reach." (p.224)

"Every year it gets clearer that all main ecological problems are global,
not national." (p.228)

"Biocentrism does not imply any devaluation of humans." (p.230)

"Men cannot determine which potentials the females have. They must try it
out themselves. In short, feminism belongs within the deep ecology
movement, but formal ecofeminists are expected to develop the theme
properly. As a supporter of the enterprise I reckon myself as an
ecofeminist." (p.271)

"The deep ecology message is simple. More care is needed: extended care for
nonhumans and deepened care for humans." (p.273)


The sentiment expressed in these quotes from Naess I would like to see
reflected in a left bio population policy.

David


   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
               Visit the Green Web Home Page at:
              http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/

        Our e-mail address is now <[log in to unmask]>

   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~